Alternative treatments in oral postcoital contraception: interim results

Interventions for emergency contraception

BACKGROUND

Emergency contraception (EC) is using a drug or copper intrauterine device (Cu-IUD) to prevent pregnancy shortly after unprotected intercourse. Several interventions are available for EC. Information on the comparative effectiveness, safety and convenience of these methods is crucial for reproductive healthcare providers and the women they serve. This is an update of a review previously published in 2009 and 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To determine which EC method following unprotected intercourse is the most effective, safe and convenient to prevent pregnancy.

SEARCH METHODS

In February 2017 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Popline and PubMed, The Chinese biomedical databases and UNDP/UNFPA/WHO/World Bank Special Programme on Human Reproduction (HRP) emergency contraception database. We also searched ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov as well as contacting content experts and pharmaceutical companies, and searching reference lists of appropriate papers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials including women attending services for EC following a single act of unprotected intercourse were eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary review outcome was observed number of pregnancies. Side effects and changes of menses were secondary outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 115 trials with 60,479 women in this review. The quality of the evidence for the primary outcome ranged from moderate to high, and for other outcomes ranged from very low to high. The main limitations were risk of bias (associated with poor reporting of methods), imprecision and inconsistency.Comparative effectiveness of different emergency contraceptive pills (ECP)Levonorgestrel was associated with fewer pregnancies than Yuzpe (estradiol-levonorgestrel combination) (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.84, 6 RCTs, n = 4750, I² = 23%, high-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of pregnancy using Yuzpe is assumed to be 29 women per 1000, the chance of pregnancy using levonorgestrel would be between 11 and 24 women per 1000.Mifepristone (all doses) was associated with fewer pregnancies than Yuzpe (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.41, 3 RCTs, n = 2144, I² = 0%, high-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of pregnancy following Yuzpe is assumed to be 25 women per 1000 women, the chance following mifepristone would be between 1 and 10 women per 1000.Both low-dose mifepristone (less than 25 mg) and mid-dose mifepristone (25 mg to 50 mg) were probably associated with fewer pregnancies than levonorgestrel (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.99, 14 RCTs, n = 8752, I² = 0%, high-quality evidence; RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.83, 27 RCTs, n = 6052, I² = 0%, moderate-quality evidence; respectively). This suggests that if the chance of pregnancy following levonorgestrel is assumed to be 20 women per 1000, the chance of pregnancy following low-dose mifepristone would be between 10 and 20 women per 1000; and that if the chance of pregnancy following levonorgestrel is assumed to be 35 women per 1000, the chance of pregnancy following mid-dose mifepristone would be between 16 and 29 women per 1000.Ulipristal acetate (UPA) was associated with fewer pregnancies than levonorgestrel (RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.35 to 0.99, 2 RCTs, n = 3448, I² = 0%, high-quality evidence).Comparative effectiveness of different ECP dosesIt was unclear whether there was any difference in pregnancy rate between single-dose levonorgestrel (1.5 mg) and the standard two-dose regimen (0.75 mg 12 hours apart) (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.33, 3 RCTs, n = 6653, I² = 0%, moderate-quality evidence).Mid-dose mifepristone was associated with fewer pregnancies than low-dose mifepristone (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.97, 25 RCTs, n = 11,914, I² = 0%, high-quality evidence).Comparative effectiveness of Cu-IUD versus mifepristoneThere was no conclusive evidence of a difference in the risk of pregnancy between the Cu-IUD and mifepristone (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.74, 2 RCTs, n = 395, low-quality evidence).Adverse effectsNausea and vomiting were the main adverse effects associated with emergency contraception. There is probably a lower risk of nausea (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.76, 3 RCTs, n = 2186 , I² = 59%, moderate-quality evidence) or vomiting (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.20, 3 RCTs, n = 2186, I² = 0%, high-quality evidence) associated with mifepristone than with Yuzpe. levonorgestrel is probably associated with a lower risk of nausea (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.44, 6 RCTs, n = 4750, I² = 82%, moderate-quality evidence), or vomiting (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.35, 5 RCTs, n = 3640, I² = 78%, moderate-quality evidence) than Yuzpe. Levonorgestrel users were less likely to have any side effects than Yuzpe users (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.86; 1 RCT, n = 1955, high-quality evidence). UPA users were more likely than levonorgestrel users to have resumption of menstruation after the expected date (RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.42 to 1.92, 2 RCTs, n = 3593, I² = 0%, high-quality evidence). Menstrual delay was more common with mifepristone than with any other intervention and appeared to be dose-related. Cu-IUD may be associated with higher risks of abdominal pain than mifepristone (18 events in 95 women using Cu-IUD versus no events in 190 women using mifepristone, low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Levonorgestrel and mid-dose mifepristone (25 mg to 50 mg) were more effective than Yuzpe regimen. Both mid-dose (25 mg to 50 mg) and low-dose mifepristone(less than 25 mg) were probably more effective than levonorgestrel (1.5 mg). Mifepristone low dose (less than 25 mg) was less effective than mid-dose mifepristone. UPA may be more effective than levonorgestrel.Levonorgestrel users had fewer side effects than Yuzpe users, and appeared to be more likely to have a menstrual return before the expected date. UPA users were probably more likely to have a menstrual return after the expected date. Menstrual delay was probably the main adverse effect of mifepristone and seemed to be dose-related. Cu-IUD may be associated with higher risks of abdominal pain than ECPs.

Interventions for emergency contraception

BACKGROUND

Emergency contraception (EC) is using a drug or copper intrauterine device (Cu-IUD) to prevent pregnancy shortly after unprotected intercourse. Several interventions are available for EC. Information on the comparative effectiveness, safety and convenience of these methods is crucial for reproductive healthcare providers and the women they serve. This is an update of a review previously published in 2009 and 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To determine which EC method following unprotected intercourse is the most effective, safe and convenient to prevent pregnancy.

SEARCH METHODS

In February 2017 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Popline and PubMed, The Chinese biomedical databases and UNDP/UNFPA/WHO/World Bank Special Programme on Human Reproduction (HRP) emergency contraception database. We also searched ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov as well as contacting content experts and pharmaceutical companies, and searching reference lists of appropriate papers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials including women attending services for EC following a single act of unprotected intercourse were eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary review outcome was observed number of pregnancies. Side effects and changes of menses were secondary outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 115 trials with 60,479 women in this review. The quality of the evidence for the primary outcome ranged from moderate to high, and for other outcomes ranged from very low to high. The main limitations were risk of bias (associated with poor reporting of methods), imprecision and inconsistency. Comparative effectiveness of different emergency contraceptive pills (ECP)Levonorgestrel was associated with fewer pregnancies than Yuzpe (estradiol-levonorgestrel combination) (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.84, 6 RCTs, n = 4750, I2 = 23%, high-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of pregnancy using Yuzpe is assumed to be 29 women per 1000, the chance of pregnancy using levonorgestrel would be between 11 and 24 women per 1000.Mifepristone (all doses) was associated with fewer pregnancies than Yuzpe (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.41, 3 RCTs, n = 2144, I2 = 0%, high-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of pregnancy following Yuzpe is assumed to be 25 women per 1000 women, the chance following mifepristone would be between 1 and 10 women per 1000.Both low-dose mifepristone (less than 25 mg) and mid-dose mifepristone (25 mg to 50 mg) were probably associated with fewer pregnancies than levonorgestrel (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.99, 14 RCTs, n = 8752, I2 = 0%, high-quality evidence; RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.83, 27 RCTs, n = 6052, I2 = 0%, moderate-quality evidence; respectively). This suggests that if the chance of pregnancy following levonorgestrel is assumed to be 20 women per 1000, the chance of pregnancy following low-dose mifepristone would be between 10 and 20 women per 1000; and that if the chance of pregnancy following levonorgestrel is assumed to be 35 women per 1000, the chance of pregnancy following mid-dose mifepristone would be between 16 and 29 women per 1000.Ulipristal acetate (UPA) was associated with fewer pregnancies than levonorgestrel (RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.35 to 0.99, 2 RCTs, n = 3448, I2 = 0%, high-quality evidence). Comparative effectiveness of different ECP dosesIt was unclear whether there was any difference in pregnancy rate between single-dose levonorgestrel (1.5 mg) and the standard two-dose regimen (0.75 mg 12 hours apart) (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.33, 3 RCTs, n = 6653, I2 = 0%, moderate-quality evidence).Mid-dose mifepristone was associated with fewer pregnancies than low-dose mifepristone (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.97, 25 RCTs, n = 11,914, I2 = 0%, high-quality evidence). Comparative effectiveness of Cu-IUD versus mifepristoneThere was no conclusive evidence of a difference in the risk of pregnancy between the Cu-IUD and mifepristone (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.74, 2 RCTs, n = 395, low-quality evidence). Adverse effectsNausea and vomiting were the main adverse effects associated with emergency contraception. There is probably a lower risk of nausea (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.76, 3 RCTs, n = 2186 , I2 = 59%, moderate-quality evidence) or vomiting (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.20, 3 RCTs, n = 2186, I2 = 0%, high-quality evidence) associated with mifepristone than with Yuzpe. levonorgestrel is probably associated with a lower risk of nausea (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.44, 6 RCTs, n = 4750, I2 = 82%, moderate-quality evidence), or vomiting (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.35, 5 RCTs, n = 3640, I2 = 78%, moderate-quality evidence) than Yuzpe. Levonorgestrel users were less likely to have any side effects than Yuzpe users (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.86; 1 RCT, n = 1955, high-quality evidence). UPA users were more likely than levonorgestrel users to have resumption of menstruation after the expected date (RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.42 to 1.92, 2 RCTs, n = 3593, I2 = 0%, high-quality evidence). Menstrual delay was more common with mifepristone than with any other intervention and appeared to be dose-related. Cu-IUD may be associated with higher risks of abdominal pain than mifepristone (18 events in 95 women using Cu-IUD versus no events in 190 women using mifepristone, low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Levonorgestrel and mid-dose mifepristone (25 mg to 50 mg) were more effective than Yuzpe regimen. Both mid-dose (25 mg to 50 mg) and low-dose mifepristone(less than 25 mg) were probably more effective than levonorgestrel (1.5 mg). Mifepristone low dose (less than 25 mg) was less effective than mid-dose mifepristone. UPA was more effective than levonorgestrel.Levonorgestrel users had fewer side effects than Yuzpe users, and appeared to be more likely to have a menstrual return before the expected date. UPA users were probably more likely to have a menstrual return after the expected date. Menstrual delay was probably the main adverse effect of mifepristone and seemed to be dose-related. Cu-IUD may be associated with higher risks of abdominal pain than ECPs.

Safety data for levonorgestrel, ulipristal acetate and Yuzpe regimens for emergency contraception

The World Health Organization (WHO) and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provide recommendations for use of emergency contraceptive pills (ECPs), including levonorgestrel (LNG) and combined oral contraceptives (COCs). A new ECP formulation, ulipristal acetate (UPA), is now available worldwide. To determine whether LNG, UPA or COC (Yuzpe) ECPs are safe for women with certain characteristics or medical conditions, we searched the PubMed and Cochrane databases for articles published from date of inception until May 2015 pertaining to the safety of LNG, UPA or Yuzpe ECP use. For direct evidence, we considered studies that looked at safety outcomes among women with certain medical conditions or characteristics taking ECPs compared with women not taking ECPs. For indirect evidence, we considered studies that reported pharmacokinetic (PK) data for ECP use among women with certain medical conditions or characteristics and studies that reported safety outcomes among healthy women taking ECPs. Five studies provided direct evidence; of these five studies, four examined LNG or Yuzpe use among pregnant or breastfeeding women, and one reported risk of ectopic pregnancy among women repeatedly using LNG ECPs. Poor pregnancy outcomes were rare among pregnant women who used LNG or Yuzpe ECPs during the conception cycle or early pregnancy. Breastfeeding outcomes did not differ between women exposed to LNG ECP and those unexposed, and there was no increased risk of ectopic pregnancy versus intrauterine pregnancy after repeated use of LNG ECPs compared with nonuse. Forty-five studies provided indirect evidence. One PK study demonstrated that LNG passes into breastmilk but in minimal quantities. In addition, nine studies examined pregnancy outcomes following ECP failure among healthy women, and 35 articles reported adverse events. Studies suggest that serious adverse events are rare among women taking any of these ECP formulations.

IMPLICATIONS

Evidence on safety of ECPs among women with characteristics or medical conditions listed within WHO and CDC family planning guidance is limited. However, both direct and indirect evidence for our study question did not suggest any special safety concerns for the use of ECPs among women with particular medical conditions or personal characteristics, such as pregnancy, lactation or frequent ECP use.

Interventions for emergency contraception

BACKGROUND

Emergency contraception (EC) is using a drug or copper intrauterine device (Cu-IUD) to prevent pregnancy shortly after unprotected intercourse. Several interventions are available for EC. Information on the comparative effectiveness, safety and convenience of these methods is crucial for reproductive healthcare providers and the women they serve.

OBJECTIVES

To determine which EC method following unprotected intercourse is the most effective, safe and convenient to prevent pregnancy.

SEARCH METHODS

The search included the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Popline, MEDLINE, PubMed, Biosis/EMBASE, Chinese biomedical databases and UNDP/UNFPA/WHO/World Bank Special Programme on Human Reproduction (HRP) emergency contraception database (July 2011). Content experts and pharmaceutical companies were contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials and controlled clinical trials including women attending services for EC following a single act of unprotected intercourse were eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data on outcomes and trial characteristics were extracted in duplicate and independently by two review authors. Quality assessment was also done by two review authors independently. Meta-analysis results are expressed as risk ratio (RR) using a fixed-effect model with 95% confidence interval (CI). In the presence of statistically significant heterogeneity a random-effects model was applied.

MAIN RESULTS

One hundred trials with 55,666 women were included. Most trials were conducted in China (86/100). Meta-analysis indicated that mid-dose mifepristone (25-50 mg) (20 trials; RR 0.64; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.92) or low-dose mifepristone (< 25 mg) (11 trials; RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.50 to 0.97) were significantly more effective than levonorgestrel (LNG), but the significance was marginal when only high-quality studies were included (4 trials; RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.49 to 1.01). Low-dose mifepristone was less effective than mid-dose mifepristone (25 trials; RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.97). This difference was not statistically significant when only high-quality trials were considered (6 trials; RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.50 to 1.10). Ulipristal acetate (UPA) appeared more effective (2 trials; RR 0.63) than LNG at a marginal level (P = 0.09) within 72 hours of intercourse.Regarding effectiveness in relation to the time of administration, women who took LNG within 72 hours of intercourse were significantly less likely to be pregnant than those who took it after 72 hours (4 trials; RR 0.51; 95% CI 0.31 to 0.84). It was not evident that the coitus-treatment time affected the effectiveness of mifepristone and UPA.Single-dose LNG (1.5 mg) showed similar effectiveness as the standard two-dose regimen (0.75 mg 12 h apart) (3 trials; RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.53 to 1.33). This conclusion was not modified by the time elapsed from intercourse to treatment administration.Mifepristone (all doses) (3 trials; RR 0.14; 95% CI 0.05 to 0.41) and LNG (5 trials; RR 0.54; 95% CI 0.36 to 0.80) were more effective than the Yuzpe regimen in preventing pregnancy. One trial compared gestrinone with mifepristone. No significant difference of effectiveness was identified in this trial (996 women; RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.32 to 1.76).All methods of EC were safe. Nausea and vomiting occurred with oestrogen-containing EC methods and progestogen and anti-progestogen methods caused changes in subsequent menses. LNG users were more likely to have a menstrual return before the expected date, but UPA users were more likely to have a menstrual return after the expected date. Menstrual delay was the main adverse effect of mifepristone and seemed to be dose-related.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Intermediate-dose mifepristone (25-50 mg) was superior to LNG and Yuzpe regimens. Mifepristone low dose (< 25 mg) may be more effective than LNG (0.75 mg two doses), but this was not conclusive. UPA may be more effective than LNG. LNG proved to be more effective than the Yuzpe regimen. The copper IUD was the most effective EC method and was the only EC method to provide ongoing contraception if left in situ.

Interventions for emergency contraception

BACKGROUND

Emergency contraception is using a drug or copper intrauterine device (Cu-IUD) to prevent pregnancy shortly after unprotected intercourse. Several interventions are available for emergency contraception. Information on the comparative efficacy, safety and convenience of these methods is crucial for reproductive health care providers and the women they serve.

OBJECTIVES

To determine which emergency contraceptive method following unprotected intercourse is the most effective, safe and convenient to prevent pregnancy.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The search included the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Popline, MEDLINE, PubMed, Biosis/Embase, Chinese biomedical databases and UNDP/UNFPA/WHO/World Bank Special Programme on Human Reproduction (HRP) emergency contraception database (December 2006). Content experts and pharmaceutical companies were contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials and controlled clinical trials including women attending services for emergency contraception following a single act of unprotected intercourse were eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data on outcomes and trial characteristics were extracted in duplicate and independently by two reviewers. Quality assessment was also done by two reviewers independently. Meta-analysis results are expressed as relative risk (RR) using a fixed-effects model with 95% confidence interval (CI). In the presence of statistically significant heterogeneity a random-effect model was applied.

MAIN RESULTS

Eighty-one trials with 45,842 women were included. Most trials were conducted in China (70/81). There were more pregnancies with levonorgestrel compared to mid-dose (25-50 mg) (15 trials, RR: 2.01; 95% CI: 1.27 to 3.17) or low-dose mifepristone (<25 mg) (9 trials, RR: 1.43; 95% CI: 1.02 to 2.01). Low-dose mifepristone was less effective than mid-dose (20 trials, RR:0.67; 95% CI: 0.49 to 0.92), but this effect was no longer statistically significant when only high quality trials were considered (6 trials, RR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.50 to 1.10). Single dose levonorgestrel (1.5 mg) administration seemed to have similar effectiveness as the standard 12 hours apart split-dose (0.75 mg twice) (2 trials, 3830 women; RR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.45 to 1.30). Levonorgestrel was more effective than the Yuzpe regimen in preventing pregnancy (2 trials, RR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.31 to 0.83). CDB-2914 (a second-generation progesterone receptor modulator) may be as effective as levonorgestrel (1 trial, 1549 women; RR:1.89; 95% CI: 0.75 to 4.64) but the confidence interval is wide and the result compatible with higher or lower effectiveness. Delay in the onset of subsequent menses was the main unwanted effect of mifepristone and seemed to be dose-related.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Mifepristone middle dose (25-50 mg) was superior to other hormonal regimens. Mifepristone low dose (<25 mg) could be more effective than levonorgestrel 0.75 mg (two doses) but this was not conclusive. Levonorgestrel proved more effective than the Yuzpe regimen. The copper IUD was another effective emergency contraceptive that can provide ongoing contraception.

[Emergency contraception: user's profile in primary care emergency services]

OBJECTIVES

To establish the emergency contraception (EC) users profile and whether she perceives this type of contraception as an emergency. Design. Cross sectorial study (over one year period: March 2002-March 2003).

SETTING

Emergency Services in Primary Care. Usera and Carabanchel; 11th Area; Madrid.

PARTICIPANTS

Women requesting EC in these centres.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

A questionary was filled out for all participants with their age, how many hours had spent since sexual intercourse took place (within 24 h), usual method of contraception used, previous use of EC, level of education, and reason for this request.

RESULTS

89 women. Drops out: 0. Average age: 23.7+/-48 years (range: 16-40 years). 79.8% of them came to medical emergency services in less than 24 h after sexual intercourse. Usual anticonceptive method was the condom (88.8%), 2.2% used hormones, 9% no contraceptive method at all and none of them had used the intrauterine device. 34.8% were previous users of EC. Education levels: 2.2% of women only could read and write, elementary school (37.1%), secondary school (34.8%) and high school (25.8%). Reasons for requesting EC: 91% condom failure, 7.9% not to have used any contraceptive method, and 1.1% wrong use of natural birth control methods. Among the women who had went to the emergency services within the 24 h of the sexual intercourse the 77.4% of all of them had requested EC previously and the 93% of those had requested EC for the first time (P=.032). Likewise all of them with high school level and who could write and read, the 93.9% with elementary school level, and the 71% with secondary studies went to the emergency services within the 24 h of the non protected sexual intercourse (P=.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Most of the women were young, they perceived the unprotected sexual intercourses as an emergency, the condom was the most frequently used anticonceptive method, they requested EC due to condom breakage. In 1/3 of the cases the EC had been requested previously and this group and the young women with secondary studies one were who requested it later.

Interventions for emergency contraception

BACKGROUND

In emergency contraception a drug or IUD is used to prevent pregnancy shortly after unprotected intercourse. Except for some Western-European countries and China, emergency contraception is largely under-utilised worldwide. In many developing countries lack of access to emergency contraception may subject women to unsafe abortions, which contribute significantly to maternal mortality and morbidity. Currently, several interventions (IUD, the Yuzpe regimen, levonorgestrel, mifepristone, danazol and some combination regimens) are available for emergency contraception. Information on the comparative efficacy, safety and convenience of these methods is crucial for reproductive health care providers and the women they serve.

OBJECTIVES

To determine which emergency contraceptive method following unprotected intercourse is the most effective, safe and convenient to prevent pregnancy.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The search included the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Popline, MEDLINE, Chinese biomedical databases and UNDP/UNFPA/WHO/World Bank Special Programme on Human Reproduction (HRP) emergency contraception database (July 2003). Content experts and pharmaceutical companies were contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials and controlled clinical trials including women attending services for emergency contraception following a single act of unprotected intercourse were eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data on outcomes and trial characteristics were extracted in duplicate and independently by two reviewers. Quality assessment was also done by two reviewers independently. Meta-analysis results are expressed as relative risk (RR) using a fixed-effects model with 95% confidence interval (CI). In the presence of significant heterogeneity a random-effect model was applied.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-eight trials with 33110 women were included. Most trials were conducted in China (37/48). Levonorgestrel is more effective than the Yuzpe regimen in preventing pregnancy (2 trials, RR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.31 to 0.83). Single dose (1.5 mg) administration seems to have similar effectiveness as the standard 12 hours apart split-dose (0.75 mg twice) of levonorgestrel (2 trials, RR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.45 to 1.30). Levonorgestrel has similar effectiveness to mid-dose (8 trials, RR: 1.64; 95% CI: 0.82 to 3.25) or low-dose (7 trials, RR: 1.38; 95% CI: 0.93 to 2.05) mifepristone. Low-dose (=< 10 mg) mifepristone is similarly effective as mid doses (25-50 mg) when only high quality trials are considered. Delay in the onset of subsequent menses is the main unwanted effect of mifepristone and seems to be dose-related. The Yuzpe regimen can be used when levonorgestrel and mifepristone are not available. Half-dose Yuzpe with single administration is associated with fewer side-effects but it is not clear whether it is as effective as the standard Yuzpe regimen (RR: 1.41; 95% CI: 0.76 to 2.61).

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

Levonorgestrel 1.5 mg (two split doses or a single dose) and low and mid-doses (25-50 mg) of mifepristone offer high efficacy with an acceptable side-effect profile. Single dose simplifies the use of levonorgestrel for emergency contraception without an increase in side-effects. However, mifepristone might delay the following menstruation, which could increase anxiety, particularly in higher doses. The Yuzpe regimen could be used if levonorgestrel or mifepristone are not available. The intrauterine device (IUD) is another effective emergency contraceptive, and can be kept for ongoing contraception.

Metoclopramide pretreatment attenuates emergency contraceptive-associated nausea

OBJECTIVE

The study was undertaken to determine whether metoclopramide pretreatment attenuates side effects associated with high-dose estrogen/progestin emergency contraception in at-risk patients.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a randomized, prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled study at the University of Kansas. Patients (141) requesting emergency contraception and lacking contraindications were offered entry in the study. Both the treatment (metoclopramide 10 mg) and placebo groups received active emergency contraception. Participants evaluated symptom severity with a 12-question survey tool developed for this study.

RESULTS

Metoclopramide pretreatment provided protection against nausea and cramping associated with estrogen/progestin emergency contraception. The average scores on a 10-point scale for the treatment group and placebo group were as follows: nausea 3.2 versus 4.8 (P =.01) and cramping 0.9 versus 2.2 (P <.01), indicating less severe nausea and cramping in the treatment group.

CONCLUSION

Metoclopramide pretreatment attenuates the nausea and cramping associated with Yuzpe emergency contraceptive treatment.

Emergency contraception in clinical practice: global perspectives

Access to reliable contraception is often unavailable. Unsafe abortion yearly causes death for thousands and disabling illness for millions worldwide. Insufficient information, negligence, inappropriate contraception, poverty and poor education contribute to these serious sequelae of unintended pregnancy. Identification of those at risk, the provision of appropriate information and access to emergency contraception (EC), and male involvement are emphasized. Improved knowledge, better attitudes, enhanced practice of EC, and determined providers might meet the requirements of the next century.

Mifepristone (RU486): a review

OBJECTIVE

To review the literature concerning the mechanism of action and pharmacodynamics of mifepristone (RU486), potential new uses of RU486, and its current use not only as an abortifacient but also as therapy for endometriosis, leiomyoma, breast cancer, and meningioma.

DATA IDENTIFICATION AND SELECTION

Studies that relate to RU486 were identified through a MEDLINE search.

CONCLUSION(S)

RU486 is an 11 beta-dimethyl-amino-phenyl derivative of norethindrone with a high affinity for P and glucocorticoid receptors. The receptor binding is not followed by transcription of P-dependent genes. Mifepristone effectively blocks P receptors in the placenta, resulting in the termination of pregnancy. In addition, it has been used in the treatment of leiomyomata, endometriosis, advanced breast cancer, and meningioma. It is a powerful tool to study the molecular action of P and in the future may be used as an estrogen-free contraceptive.

Development of a highly sensitive and specific assay for plasma ethinylestradiol using combined extraction, liquid chromatography and radioimmunoassay

A highly sensitive and specific assay for ethinylestradiol (EE2) in human plasma was developed. The assay procedure combined solid-phase extraction of plasma samples, isolation of extracted EE2 by liquid chromatography (LC), and radioimmunoassay. Samples were extracted to remove polar plasma constituents and steroid binding proteins. Chromatography was employed to separate EE2 from other steroids that were candidates for assay cross-reactivity. The radioimmunoassay was shown to be sensitive (lower limit of quantitation = 2 pg ml-1 EE2 in plasma) and accurate (mean accuracy = 102%). Recovery of EE2 through extraction and LC steps was 76.1 +/- 4.5% (mean +/- SD; n = 42). Overall assay intra- and inter-assay coefficients of variation were 3.6 and 8.9%, respectively. The analyte was stable in assay buffer and assay accuracy was influenced minimally by four sample freeze-thaw cycles. This assay protocol enables the precise monitoring of low circulating levels of EE2, a prominent and potent synthetic oestrogen.